How long will it take for folks to realize that 'gun free' zones are just magnets for carnage.  When an active shooting situation occurs, the police response time allows the shooter ample opportunity to kill/injure as many people as possible.  And, as in many cases, once an officer engaged the Ft Hood shooter, the shooter took his own life without a shot fired by the officer

 

Imagine, had one person been able to engage the shooter before the military police arrived, how many of the deaths/injuries could have been prevented.  

 

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/02/us/fort-hood-shooting/

 

 

Beam me up, Scotty, there's no intelligent life here......

Original Post

I'm sure it had nothing to do with the mental illness issues plaguing our military...

 

If everyone had guns, then people who are suffering from mental illness would suddenly snap out of it, and think twice about shooting up a place and before killing themselves. 

 

You should have been a psychiatrist Capt.  

 

So there was no one with a gun on a military base huh? Just like at the Navy yard shooting where the shooter shot the security guards and took their weapons and continued killing. 

 

I really wish, that just once, we could have an honest discussion about gun violence on this forum. I don't expect it to happen though. The topic is too charge with emotion and propaganda. You don't have to respond to me if you don't want to. I won't be back for another round of "we don't have enough guns!!" debate. Lifes too short for useless endeavors. 

You totaly miss the point Jank.  If one of the trained soldiers that was being shot at had been armed, not as many innocent people would be dead.  The shooter violated a law, and innocent people suffered because they were obeying the law!  How hard is that to understand?

Originally Posted by Jankinonya:

So there was no one with a gun on a military base huh? Just like at the Navy yard shooting where the shooter shot the security guards and took their weapons and continued killing. 

 

I really wish, that just once, we could have an honest discussion about gun violence on this forum. I don't expect it to happen though. The topic is too charge with emotion and propaganda. You don't have to respond to me if you don't want to. I won't be back for another round of "we don't have enough guns!!" debate. Lifes too short for useless endeavors. 


Jank,

 

We will have an honest discussion on this forum when those that are so anti gun educate themselves on the facts about the topics we are discussing.  This has nothing to do with mental illness in military members.  If this situation was due to mental illness, how well did the current gun ban on base do at keeping him from bringing the gun on base yesterday?

 

Here are the facts:

 

1. Guns are banned on US Military installations:  the only military members that can carry a weapon on base are the miltary police.  Just like the only people that can carry guns in schools (and other gun free zones) are civilian police.  For those that dont know, the military has a police force that patrol the bases like civilian police patrol towns.  When an accident or crime occurs on base, you wait for the MP's to respond and file the report.

 

Please see this article  -

 

http://www.yourhoustonnews.com...9f-87ca9bd5965b.html

 

“This is the third mass shooting on a military base in five years, and it’s because our trained soldiers aren’t allowed to carry defensive weapons,” said Stockman. “Anti-gun activists have turned our military bases into soft targets for killers.”

 

2. Current 'Gun Free Zone' laws do not work - we continue to see case after case where gunman are targeting gun free zones and the carnage is horrbile.  Only people who dont want to see this trend cant see it.

 

3. Many gunman dont go out in a hail of gunfire with police, they commit suicide when they are approached by an ARMED policeman - What makes you think, when an armed civilian pulls his gun in self defense, the result would be any different.

 

4. CRIMINALS DONT OBEY LAWS - As much as so many Liberals would like to believe the opposite, its just not true.  We keep enacting gun laws under the impression that it will prevent a crime.  Seriously!  The only way to curb gun crime is through harsher punishment for crimes that are committed with a gun or to do away with guns completely.  Enacting more laws to make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to obtain guns and ammo will do nothing to curb gun crimes.  Just look at Chicago, DC, etc.

 

 

 

 

First, an apology.  I know several of you insist on links, but folks, I'm on dial-up so cut me some slack.  You know how to google.

 

Comments made by retired Gen. Honere [sic?] on CNN this morning tend to support Jank's comments regarding "mental illness" as I interpret the definition within the troops.  Specifically, PTSD.  The CNN commenters said the shooter had been receiving psychiatric help and was on medication.  The Army was aware of this.  But the talking heads mentioned Ambien?  A sleep aid?  Seriously?

 

[CNN talking heads were also crying the shooter was wearing BDUs.  That's like saying the farmer was wearing overalls.]

 

I would not go so far as to say mental issues are a "plague" in the military any more than it is in civilian society but the rate per capita seems higher among those returning from the middle east.  Honere pointed that out and one of the commenters, perhaps him, emphasized the number of suicides. 

 

So kindly remember that of the many mass shootings we've had, only 3 have occurred on military bases.  Two were committed by active duty personnel.  I don't know if the contractor on the VA Navy base was a vet or not.  Just saying.

 

But on to what Honere said...paraphrasing...that soldiers who have served in war zones who exhibit personality disorders upon returning are NOT receiving adequate treatment.  He was very emphatic about that.  As is Jank, I believe.  Even the base CO said PTSD diagnosis is a long and involved process [especially for one who hasn't seen combat].  But, as I said, the shooter had been seeing a psychiatrist and the Army knew it. 

 

BUT...the general added, the gun had nothing to do with itIt was the person.  So, Jank, was the general being dishonest?

 

I served 13 years in the USAF SF, the air force equivalent of the Army MP's and unless the THREATCON level was like it was just after 9-11, getting a handgun on base is no more difficult than bringing a sub sandwich.  Unless there is enforcement, there is no deterrent.  Other commenters, including the base commander said the MP response time was somewhere between 10 and 15 minutes.  I said at least a couple of years ago on this forum, "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away."  I know and we ran shooter-intruder drills all the time. 

 

Which brings us to Captains point.  Hang all the signs you want, nothing is going to deter a bad guy with a gun like a good guy with a gun.    Would guns in the hands of a good guys been a deterrent?  We don't know.  So far the bad guys have only taken on unarmed students, movie goers, workers, and children.  They've NEVER taken on an armed populace.  They even take their own lives rather than confront armed resistance.  Maybe they're not as crazy as we think.

 

BTW, please note no "assault rifles" or extended magazines were used in either of the Ft. Hood shootings nor the one at Luby's restaurant in Killeen TX outside the base.  Just your basic OTC legally purchased handguns in the hands of sociopaths.

 

 

Yes, getting a weapon on base is easy - illegally.  Just like getting one into a school, courthouse, mall, theater, etc etc is easy.  Those of us that are law abiding gun owners respect the fact that the law bans guns in these areas.  Its what keeps us from carrying guns in these areas.  That, and the fact that we could lose our right to carry if we are caught carrying in many of these areas.  Criminals tend to not care about those same laws - thus the uselessness of a gun free zone.  I'll never understand how anyone can say a gun free zone makes them safer.  It might make them 'feel' safer, but they are really not any safer (and in fact are less safe) unless entry to the area is controlled  and everyone is searched throughly before entering.  I add this last part because I spent last week at Disney in Florida and can tell you that gun free zone is not controlled.  They search bags, but never once did I go through a metal detector, never once was I patted down and my hip bag (where I carry my camera) was searched only half the time (its big enough to carry a full size pistol in and it be concealed).  So, I hope their intent is to feel good about those no gun signs, thats about all they are going to get out of them.

 

As for the issue of mental illness in this case - its irrelevent to the number of people killed / injured and my point in the first place.  Yes, mental illness is a big issue in this country.  But it should have nothing, NOTHING, to do with the gun arguement in this country.  Because as long as their are guns here, people will have a way to get them illegally.  Those that try to use mental illness as a reason to control guns have their head up their rear.  Sure, we should do our best to identify mental illness and address it, but to make it more difficult to buy guns and ammo because you think it will keep it out of the hands of mentally unstable people is not realistic.  Its just another approach the liberals use to push gun control.  If they were really worried about mental illness, they would be talking about mental illness.  Not guns. 

 

My point was - whether this person was a terrorist, was mentally unstable, was mad at his boss, or for whatever reason - had non MPs on that base been able to carry legally, there would have been a better chance for someone to intervene before the MPs arrived.  We will never know if somone would have intervened or not, but we do know that no one could because guns are banned on base and MOST of the military members on that base are going to respect that ban.

 

 

Mentally ill. Able to function in society for the most part, but so mentally ill they end up killing people. Mentally ill, but set free after killing someone to do it again. How many times has that happened?  Capt is absolutely correct:

 

Those that try to use mental illness as a reason to control guns have their head up their rear.  Sure, we should do our best to identify mental illness and address it, but to make it more difficult to buy guns and ammo because you think it will keep it out of the hands of mentally unstable people is not realistic.  Its just another approach the liberals use to push gun control.  If they were really worried about mental illness, they would be talking about mental illness.  Not guns. 

This has nothing to do with guns, and as far as I can tell he didn't plead mental illness. I saw this story the other day and it has bothered me since. He had been raping this girl since she was 12, some claim with the knowledge of her mother, and they say her mother is still "standing by him". He got 9-12 years for killing her, and will be out in 2015 after doing less than 9 years. What's wrong with this picture? People don't want killers executed, they want to blame everything on mental illness, or guns, and human waste like this man is barely given a slap on the wrist for his evil crime. What's the answer?

 

 

http://mylifeofcrime.wordpress...oritts-murder-71105/

Wow, what a comprehensive list of gun control failures in the Ft Hood shooting.....

 

From all indications so far, yesterday’s Fort Hood incident is turning into a monument for the total failure of various policies endorsed by the gun ban lobby. The “gun-free” environment didn’t work. The background check didn’t prevent the crime. There was no “assault weapon” involved and the gunman used a legally-purchased pistol obtained through existing legal channels, and until it is otherwise revealed, it appears he used standard-capacity magazines for that firearm that only held eight or ten rounds.

 

http://www.examiner.com/articl...ed-background-checks

Originally Posted by Capt James T:

Its just another approach the liberals use to push gun control.  If they were really worried about mental illness, they would be talking about mental illness.  Not guns. 

  

 

It just never takes them long, does it?  

 

A day after the latest shootings in Fort Hood in Texas, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told reporters, "I would like to be able to bring it [expanded background checks] back up, but I need some more votes."

 

http://www.startribune.com/pol...ional/253788691.html

 

He also said:

 

"As I was told today, this young man bought his gun a day or two before he killed these people," Reid told reporters. "Couldn't we at least have background checks so that people who are ill mentally, or who are felons, shouldn't be able to buy guns? Even NRA members, a majority of them, support that so I hope we can bring it back up."

 

As I mentioned earlier - this guy passed a background check at a federally licensed dealer.  And he bought it a MONTH before, not a day or two before, from that federally licensed dealer AFTER passing that background check.

 

So, why is he not talking about mental illness?  Doesn't fit his narrative.....

 

 

 

 

you could paste any comment, from this entire thread, into any other 'mass shooting' topic.. they're all the same.. the 'liberals' aren't posting.. because to do the same thing over and expect different results is the definition of insane.. or the republican party motto.. take your pick.

 

An honest discussion on the subject of mental illness and background checks would have to include the bizarre case of Alice Boland which crosses party lines.

 

When handed her case on a silver platter, the failure of the DOJ, Secret Service, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms under two different administrations to prosecute which led to the attempted random murder of a school teacher by a certified, documented sociopath.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02...al-illness.html?_r=0

 

If the link fails, please Google:  Alice Bowland New York Times.

 

"The truth will set you free, but first it will pizz you off" ~  Gloria Steinem

 

Originally Posted by Crash.Override:

you could paste any comment, from this entire thread, into any other 'mass shooting' topic.. they're all the same.. the 'liberals' aren't posting.. because to do the same thing over and expect different results is the definition of insane.. or the republican party motto.. take your pick.


Yes the results are the same, the libs looking like the south end of a north bound mule.  I for one enjoy seeing you guys make fools of yourselves...as for the dim party motto..."who needs facts when lies will sufice?".

 

 

I'll bet if these identified and armed sociopath domestic terrorist were pointing their guns at the children of politicians instead of politicians pointing their fingers at each other, they would quit their petty grabazzing around and the problem would be resolved PDQ.

 

 

Originally Posted by Capt James T:
Originally Posted by Jankinonya:

So there was no one with a gun on a military base huh? Just like at the Navy yard shooting where the shooter shot the security guards and took their weapons and continued killing. 

 

I really wish, that just once, we could have an honest discussion about gun violence on this forum. I don't expect it to happen though. The topic is too charge with emotion and propaganda. You don't have to respond to me if you don't want to. I won't be back for another round of "we don't have enough guns!!" debate. Lifes too short for useless endeavors. 


Jank,

 

We will have an honest discussion on this forum when those that are so anti gun educate themselves on the facts about the topics we are discussing.  This has nothing to do with mental illness in military members.  If this situation was due to mental illness, how well did the current gun ban on base do at keeping him from bringing the gun on base yesterday?

 

Here are the facts:

 

1. Guns are banned on US Military installations:  the only military members that can carry a weapon on base are the miltary police.  Just like the only people that can carry guns in schools (and other gun free zones) are civilian police.  For those that dont know, the military has a police force that patrol the bases like civilian police patrol towns.  When an accident or crime occurs on base, you wait for the MP's to respond and file the report.

 

+++

 

Captain,

 

Don't mean to cut short nor take away from the points you made, but just in case some folks may not have understood,  for clarification posts like Ft. Hood have both DoD civilian LEO and US Army Military Police.

 

Yes, they do patrol like civilian police patrol towns, the DoD more so including manning the entry points to the base.  Military security forces are normally tasked to protect assets and deny access to certain areas on the base which may post signs stating  "Use of Force is Authorized."

 

You don't find that too often in civilian towns unless it's posted by a homeowner ... or a no-nonsense business. 

 

In the first shooting, it was two  DoD LEOs who were the first responders.  One of them was shot by the domestic terrorist and the other put the shooter down.

 

In the second instance, it was a Army MP who confronted the killer who then took his own life.

 

Then they wrote the reports.

 

The intervention by DoD and the MP's no doubt resulted in the situation becoming worse, but no response, no matter how quick could possibly be as fast as meeting force with force on site when the incident began.

 

And you know what that means. 

 

 

 

Edit to read:

 

"The intervention by DoD and the MP's no doubt resulted in keeping the situation from becoming worse, but no response, no matter how quick could possibly be as fast as meeting force with force on site when the incident began.

 

Originally Posted by Practicalthinker:

Have y'all noticed that the radical leftie posters haven't commented on this one? They know this argument is totally going to get them a verbal beatdown!

___

No. They know that the pro-gun crowd has run out of ammunition and will be  posting its Johnny one-note drivel forever, irrespective of what anyone else believes or writes. 

Add Reply

Likes (0)
Post

×
×
×
×